See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257718530

An Assessment Framework for the Renovation of Existing Residential

Buildings Regarding Environmental Efficiency

Article  in  Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences · December 2012

DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.12.248

CITATIONS READS

9 239

2 authors, including:

Heng Zhang
National Cheng Kung University
24 PUBLICATIONS   344 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Study on the relationship among environmental design, environmental behavior and community resilience. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Heng Zhang on 24 July 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 68 (2012) 549 – 563

AicE-Bs 2012 Cairo

ASIA Pacific International Conference on Environment-Behaviour Studies
Mercure Le Sphinx Cairo Hotel, Giza, Egypt, 31 October 2 November 2012
-

An Assessment Framework for the Renovation of Existing

Residential Buildings Regarding Environmental Efficiency
Heng Zhang*, Siu Lai Lei
Department of Architecture, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan

Abstract

Renovation of buildings is a sustainable way to keep the built environment functional. Thus, it is important to find a
way to assess the efficiency of a renovation activity. Besides functionality, which is the basic requirement for any
building, sustainability has also become a significant factor due to the environmental challenges we face today. This
study adopts principles of environmental efficiency in proposing an assessment framework for existing residential
buildings that simultaneously reflects functionality and sustainability. A pilot study demonstrates the proposed
framework provides useful information for prioritizing critical renovation issues, leading to notable improvements in
functionality and sustainability.
© 2012 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
© 2012 Published
Selection by Elsevier
and peer-review underLtd. Selection of
responsibility andthepeer-review under responsibility of the
Centre for Environment-Behaviour Centre
Studies for Environment-
(cE-Bs), Faculty of
Behaviour Studies
Architecture, (cE-Bs),
Planning Faculty ofUniversiti
& Surveying, Architecture, Planning
Teknologi & Surveying,
MARA, Malaysia.Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia.

Keywords: Environmental efficiency; functional quality; environmental loading; existing residential building

1. Introduction

Renovation of buildings is a sustainable way to keep the built environment functional, by which
unnecessary waste of construction resources can be considerably reduced (Bin & Parker, 2012). To find a
way to assess the value of a renovation is thus important for ensuring its efficiently, particularly for the
homeowner or condo management committee undertaking the renovation. The assessment tool should
reveal practical information to inform the renovation while being simple to use for laypeople.
Existing residential buildings warrant special attention due to their high ratio in the overall building
stock in Taiwan. The percentage of households living in buildings over 10 years old is over 90%

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +0-000-000-0000 ; fax: +0-000-000-0000 .
E-mail address: changlin@mail.ncku.edu.tw

1877-0428 © 2012 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Centre for Environment-Behaviour Studies (cE-Bs), Faculty of Architecture,
Planning & Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.12.248
550 Heng Zhang and Siu Lai Lei / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 68 (2012) 549 – 563

(Construction and Planning Agency, 2008; Directorate General of Budget, 2000). Occupants living in
older buildings, most of which were built over 35 years ago, are more likely to undertake a major
renovation on their homes (Nair, Gustavsson, & Mahapatra, 2010). The situation has been further
aggravated by intense social change in the past few decades, including aging of population, decline of
birth rate, increase of leisure time, and emergence of new technology. Consequently, the functionality of
existing
kitchen, dining area and clothes-drying space being typically unsatisfactory (Salleh, 2008). Renovation is
one of the most direct ways to eliminate functional deficiencies.
Functionality is the basic requirement for the performance of homes and a key factor in the quality of
life for residents. In addition, the global environmental crisis has led to a significant rise in environmental
consciousness. Sustainable design and high-performance buildings have thus gained increasing
importance in the construction industry for buildings both new and old. According to Erlandsson and
Lvein (Erlandsson & Levin, 2005), renovation and maintenance of existing buildings can greatly improve
environmental performance. Thus, sustainability is also a key consideration in residential renovation
besides functionality.
A reliable tool to control and evaluate the effect of renovation is of great value, especially for
stakeholders looking for guidance in prioritizing critical renovation issues within a constrained budget. A
number of building environmental assessment tools have been developed within the specific context of
local conditions in different countries (Forsberg & Von Malmborg, 2004). But an appropriate assessment
tool to simultaneously evaluate the functionality and environmental efficiency of existing residential
buildings to be renovated is still missing. This study proposes a framework for assessing the functional
environmental performance of existing residential buildings, with a focus on prioritizing renovation
improvements.

2. Environmental Efficiency

Environmental efficiency is derived from eco-efficiency, which is defined by the World Business
Council for Sustainable Development (WBSCD) as the product or service value divided by its influence
on the environment (Verfaillie & Bidwell, 2000). First presented in 1992, eco-efficiency has received
considerable attention and has been widely applied at different levels in recent years (Li, Hui, Leung, Li,
& Xu, 2010). Many assessment tools have been developed following the concept of eco-efficiency.
Assefa et al. (2007) proposed the EcoEffect framework for assessing the environmental efficiency of
buildings, which is useful for existing buildings as well as buildings in design phase. When CASBEE
(Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency) (Endo, Murakami, & Ikaga,
2008) was unveiled, building environmental efficiency (BEE) attracted broad attention in the building
management field. The BEE indicator is composed of two groups of indices: building environmental
quality and building environmental load. Malmquist and Glaumann (2009) applied the concept of
environmental efficiency to develop a framework for assessing user satisfaction with indoor environments
and the environmental impact related to the energy use of residential buildings. These tools for accurately
assessing a building s environmental efficiency are practical and useful for managing its environment
and subsequent improvement (Assefa et al., 2007).

3. Construction of the Assessment Method

In this study, an assessment framework is developed for the environmental efficiency of functionality
(EEF) based on two groups of indices: functional quality (FQ) and environmental loading (EL). The fuzzy
 Heng Zhang and Siu Lai Lei / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 68 (2012) 549 – 563 551

Delphi Method (FDM) was used to confirm the suitability of the indices, while the fuzzy Analytic
Hierarchy Process (FAHP) was used to determine the weighting of each index.

3.1. The functional quality indices (FQ)

The functional quality indices include three levels. Level 1 consists of four categories: functional
ability, durability and reliability, flexibility and adaptability, and the outdoor environment on the site and
its surroundings (Chang, Chiang, & Chou, 2007; JSBC, 2005; Lee & Burnett, 2006). The suitability of the
levels 2 and level 3 indices was then evaluated through the fuzzy Delphi Method. A survey was
conducted to collect expert opinions about the importance of the indices. A total of twelve questionnaires
were collected from experts, including five architects, three government officials and four scholars in
architecture-related fields. The experts were asked to evaluate the importance of each index by offering
minimum and maximum acceptable values on a scale of 0 (very unimportant) to 10 (very important). To
express these values, we developed triangular fuzzy numbers for the minimum acceptable value (Mini)
and maximum acceptable value (Maxi) of a given index (Kuo & Chen, 2008). Each triangular fuzzy
number consisted of three values derived from the expert opinions: the lowest value, the geometric mean
and the ultimate value. A consensus was reached for two conditions: the two triangular fuzzy numbers
either had no overlap or had an overlap that fell within the range of two geometric means (see Fig. 1). If
the triangular fuzzy number had an overlap but exceeded the range of two geometric means, no consensus
was established for the evaluated index and the evaluation was redone until a consensus was reached. A
threshold value of 6 was then set, based on one established in corresponding studies adopting the same 0-
10 point scale (H.-M. Hsu, Wey, & Tsai, 2007). As shown in Table 1, all the consensus values for the
level 2 indices are higher than the threshold value (i.e., 6). The results indicate the experts confirmed the
suitability of these nine functional quality indices in level 2. In addition, for the 21 indices in level 3, the

important in the functional quality evaluation for residential buildings. They were therefore eliminated.
Fig. 2 depicts the index group of functional quality integrating the expert opinions. This assessment group
is composed of four categories of indices in level 1. Nine indices in level 2 and 19 in level 3 are used as
the assessment indices for evaluating the functional quality of residential buildings.

Membership
degree
Gi
Mini Maxi
1

0 i
Min L MiniM MiniU
Max L i
MaxiM MaxiU
Experts opinions

Note: MiniL, MiniM, and MiniU refer to the lowest value, geometric mean and ultimate value of the minimum acceptable value,
respectively. MaxiL, MaxiM, and MaxiU refer to the lowest value, geometric mean and ultimate value of the maximum acceptable
value, respectively. Gi refers to the consensus value.

Fig. 1. Triangular fuzzy numbers with overlap

552 Heng Zhang and Siu Lai Lei / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 68 (2012) 549 – 563

Function quality for

residential buildings

Level 1

A B C D
Functional Durability & Flexibility & Outdoor
ability reliability adaptability environment

Level 2
A1 Usability

A2 Amenity

B1 Service life

B2 Reliability of equipments

C1 Flexibility

C2 Adaptability of equipments

D1 Preservation & creation of

D2 Townscape & landscape

D3 Local characteristics &

biotope

outdoor amenity
Level 3

A1 B1 C1
1 Provision of space 1 Necessary renewal interval for 1 Flexibility in floor layout
2 Provision of storage exterior finishes 2 Flexibility in partition
3 Provision of information 2 Necessary renewal interval for materials
system interior finishes
4 Barrier-free facilities 3 Necessary renewal interval for C2
electrical wires and water pipes 1 Ease of water supply and
A2 4 Necessary renewal interval for drainage pipes renewal
1 Spaciousness main equipments 2 Ease of electrical wires
2 Leisure space & facilities renewal
B2 3 Ease of communication
1 Emergency preparations on water cables renewal
supply and drainage equipments 4 Routes for equipments
2 Emergency preparations on renewal
electrical equipments
3 Emergency preparations on
communication and information
equipments

Fig. 2. Indices of functional quality (FQ)

 Heng Zhang and Siu Lai Lei / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 68 (2012) 549 – 563 553

Table 1. Consensus values of indices (level 2) for functional quality

Index Minimum Acceptable Value Maximum Acceptable Value Consensus

i i i i i i Value
Min L Min M Min U Max L Max M Max U

A1 Usability 5 6.02 7 7 9.21 10 7.62

A2 Amenity 4 5.48 7 7 9.12 10 7.30

B1 Service life 3 4.74 6 7 8.79 10 6.76

B2 Reliability of equipment 3 4.89 7 7 8.88 10 6.89

C1 Flexibility 2 4.38 7 6 7.85 10 6.41

C2 Adaptability of equipment 4 5.16 7 7 8.80 10 6.98

D1 Preservation & creation of biotope 5 4.87 7 7 8.84 10 6.85

D2 Townscape & landscape 4 4.17 6 7 7.94 10 6.06

D3 Local characteristics & outdoor amenities 3 4.20 6 7 7.95 9 6.08

i i i
Note: Min L, Min M, and Min U refer to the lowest value, geometric mean and ultimate value of the minimum acceptable value,
respectively. MaxiL, MaxiM, and MaxiU refer to the lowest value, geometric mean and ultimate value of the maximum acceptable
value, respectively.

3.2. The environmental loading indices (EL)

Level 1 of the environmental loading indices includes three categories: energy, resources and
materials, and off-site environment (Chang et al., 2007; JSBC, 2005; Lee & Burnett, 2006). The
suitability of indices in level 2 was evaluated by FDM and the results are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Consensus values of indices (level 2) for environmental loading

Index Minimum acceptable value Maximum acceptable value Consensus

i i i i i i Value
Min L Min M Min U Max L Max M Max U

E1 Reduction of building thermal load 3 5.71 8 7 9.03 10 7.47

E2 Natural energy utilization 3 4.89 7 7 8.43 10 6.66

E3 Efficiency in service system 4 5.52 7 7 8.61 10 7.07

E4 Efficiency operation 3 4.16 6 5 7.64 10 5.59

F1 Water saving 4 4.88 6 7 8.28 10 6.58

F2 Green materials utilization 4 4.57 6 7 8.36 10 6.47

G1 Air pollution control 3 5.06 7 5 7.88 10 6.20

G2 Wind damage & sunlight obstruction 3 4.91 7 7 8.30 10 6.61

G3 Consideration of thermal impact 3 5.45 8 7 8.69 10 7.40

G4 Consideration of local infrastructure load 3 5.04 7 7 8.36 10 6.70

i i i
Note: Min L, Min M, and Min U refer to the lowest value, geometric mean and ultimate value of the minimum acceptable value,
respectively. MaxiL, MaxiM, and MaxiU refer to the lowest value, geometric mean and ultimate value of the maximum acceptable
value, respectively
554 Heng Zhang and Siu Lai Lei / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 68 (2012) 549 – 563

operational efficiency may not be important for assessing the environmental loading of residential
buildings. Therefore, it has been excluded from the assessment framework. Fig. 3 shows the index group
of environmental loading integrating the expert opinions. This index group is composed of three
categories and nine indices in level 2 for evaluating the environmental loading of existing residential
buildings.

Environmental loadings

Level 1

E F G
Energy Resources & materials Off-site environment

Level 2
E1 Reduction of building

E2 Natural energy utilization

E3 Efficiency in service system

F1 Water saving

F2 Green materials utilization

G1 Air pollution control

G2 Wind damage & sunlight

G3 Consideration of thermal

G4 Consideration of local
thermal load

obstruction

impact

infrastructure load
Fig. 3. Indices of environmental loading (EL)

3.3. Weighting

After setting the indices of the assessment framework, we used the fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process
(FAHP) to determine the weighting of each index in the two groups of indices. Experts were asked to
compare the indices in pairs to prioritize the relative importance of them in each index group. A triangular
fuzzy number, with scores from 1 to 9, was used to represent the evaluation of the paired comparison. The
triangular fuzzy number is composed of three values, namely the minimum acceptable value, most-likely
value and maximum acceptable value (Pan, 2008). The opinion of each expert was tested, and the
consistency ratio of the opinion was deemed acceptable if it fell below 0.1 (Kwong & Bai, 2003). The
similarity aggregation method (SAM) was then used to integrate the fuzzy expert opinions and evaluate
the component weighting in each group of indices (Y.-L. Hsu, Lee, & Kreng, 2010; Wang & Tseng,
2003).
Fourteen expert questionnaires were collected, and two with consistency ratio greater than 0.1 were
discarded, leaving a total of 12 valid responses retained for analysis. The expert group included four
architects, four government officials and four scholars in architecture-related fields. The index weighting

.19) to be higher than that of the other two categories (0.14

 Heng Zhang and Siu Lai Lei / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 68 (2012) 549 – 563 555

(see Fig. 4).

Table 3. Weighting of indices for functionality quality

Level 1 Level 2/ Index Weighting Performance

score
(Category)/ Weighting Weighting
A Functional Ability A1 Usability A1-1 Provision of Space 0.202 0.202
0.521 0.375
A1-2 Provision of Storage 0.048 0.016
A1-3 Provision of Information System 0.041 0.027
A1-4 Barrier-free Facilities 0.084 0.082
A2 Amenity A2-1 Spaciousness 0.069 0.058
0.146
A2-2 Leisure Space & Facilities 0.077 0.051
B Durability & Reliability B1 Service life B1-1 Necessary Renewal Interval for 0.006 0.005
0.143 0.079 Exterior Finishes
B1-2 Necessary Renewal Interval for 0.011 0.007
Interior Finishes
B1-3 Necessary Renewal Interval for 0.031 0.021
Electrical Wires and Water Pipes
B1-4 Necessary Renewal Interval for 0.031 0.010
Main Equipments
B2 Reliability of B2-1 Emergency Preparedness of 0.020 0.013
equipment Water Supply and Drainage
0.064 Equipments
B2-2 Emergency Preparedness of 0.031 0.010
Electrical Equipments
B2-3 Emergency Preparedness of 0.013 0.004
Communication and Information
Equipments
C Flexibility & Adaptability C1 Flexibility C1-1 Flexibility of Floor Layout 0.038 0.025
0.145 0.052
C1-2 Flexibility of Partition Materials 0.014 0.014
C2 Apapability of C2-1 Ease of Water Supply and 0.037 0.012
equipment Drainage Pipes Renewal
0.093 C2-2 Ease of Electrical Wires 0.033 0.011
Renewal
C2-3 Ease of Communication Cables 0.012 0.004
Renewal
C2-4 Routes for Equipments Renewal 0.011 0.004
D Outdoor Environment D1 Preservation & Creation of 0.077 0.026
0.191 Biotope
D2 Townscape & Landscape 0.043 0.014
D3 Local Characteristics & Outdoor 0.071 0.024
Amenity
556 Heng Zhang and Siu Lai Lei / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 68 (2012) 549 – 563

0.24
Provision of
space
0.20

0.16 Local characteristics

Barrier-free Leisure space
Weighting

facilities & facilities & outdoor amenity

0.12 Preservation &
creation of biotope
0.08

0.04

0.00
Functional Durability & Flexibility & Outdoor
ability reliability adaptability environment
Note: The dotted line refers to a subjective apparatus for identifying notable indices.

Fig. 4. Weighting of indices for functional quality

-
ong the functional quality

environmental loading,
-

evidently higher importance than others (see Table 4).

Reduction of building
0.30 thermal load
0.25 Natural energy Consideration of
utilization thermal impact
0.20
Weighting

Water saving
0.15
0.10

0.05
0.00
Energy Resources & Off-site
materials environment

Note: The dotted line refers to a subjective apparatus for identifying notable indices.

Fig. 5. Weighting of indices for environmental loading

 Heng Zhang and Siu Lai Lei / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 68 (2012) 549 – 563 557

Table 4. Weighting of indices for building environmental loadings

Category / weighting Index Weighting Performance score

E Energy E1 Reduction of Building Thermal Load 0.260 0.173

0.517
E2 Natural Energy Utilization 0.167 0.056
E3 Efficiency in Service System 0.090 0.030
F Resources & Materials F1 Water Saving 0.131 0.087
0.212
F2 Green Materials Utilization 0.081 0.027
G Off-Site Environment G1 Air Pollution Control 0.053 0.018
0.271
G2 Wind Damage & Sunlight Obstruction 0.077 0.026
G3 Consideration of Thermal Impact 0.106 0.035
G4 Consideration of Local Infrastructure Load 0.035 0.012

3.4. Pilot test

In order to investigate the workability of the proposed framework, we conducted a pilot test. This
section describes the application of the environmental efficiency of functionality on existing residential
buildings using an actual building (see Fig. 6) in southern Taiwan. It was chosen for the pilot test because
it is a very typical mixed-use building for Taiwan. Completed in 1994, it is an eight-story block building
with 60 flats and 12 commercial units on ground floor and a total floor area of 6740 m2.
To evaluate the environmental efficiency of functionality of the building, scores were given to
assessment items for both the functional quality and environmental loading of the building. For
application by laypeople, the score system was designed to be as simple as possible with only three
scoring levels (i.e. condition scores): one point for poor, two for adequate, and three for excellent. The
responsible evaluators, normally homeowners, building users or condo management committees, can
easily assign score levels to the assessed items according to the corresponding conditions of the building.

adequate), the scores for all the other categories were below 2.00: 1.50, 1.46, 1.50, and 1.62 for

-
(1.00) were markedly low. The condition scores were then converted to performance levels: 1 for 33.33%,
2 for 66.67%, and 3 for 100%. The performance levels were multiplied by their corresponding weighting
to give performance scores. The performance scores for functional quality (SFQ) and reduction of
environmental loading (SLR) could then be calculated by adding together the scores of all items in the
respective group of indices. Finally, as shown in Formula (1), environmental efficiency of functionality
(EEF) was calculated as functional quality (FQ) divided by environmental loading (EL). FQ is defined as
the performance score of functional quality (SFQ), and EL is defined as the conversion of the
environmental loading reduction score (SLR) into environmental loading score (SEL). To calculate EEF,
the performance score may be replaced by the condition score, which is then directly multiplied by the
corresponding weighting. In order to compare with the EE value of CASBEE, the present study employs
condition scores only to calculate EEF. The range for both SFQ and SEL was 1.00~3.00, and the range
for EEF was 0.33~3.00. A higher value of EEF represents better environmental performance.

EEF FQ EL = SFQ / LR) (1)

558 Heng Zhang and Siu Lai Lei / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 68 (2012) 549 – 563

The assessment results of the environmental efficiency of functionality for the pilot test are presented
below. Fig. 7 shows the performance score for each category in the assessment framework (also see Table
3 and 4). The total condition scores for functional quality and reduction of environmental loading were
1.76 and 1.39, respectively. The latter was then converted to an environmental loading score with a
resulting value of 2.61. Finally, the environmental efficiency of functionality of the pilot test was
calculated using Formula (1) with a resulting value of 0.68.

Fig. 6. Facade of the test building

Functional
ability
Off-site Durability &
environment reliability
3
2
1

Resources Flexibility
& &
materials adaptability

Energy Outdoor
environment

Legend: Score level

Fig.7. Condition score of categories in the assessment framework
 Heng Zhang and Siu Lai Lei / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 68 (2012) 549 – 563 559

Figures 8 and 9 show, separately, the performance scores for indices in functional quality (FQ) and
environmental loading (EL). To highlight items critical to improving renovation performance, the
performance, weighting and performance score of each index are displayed in the figures. The
performance score was calculated by multiplying the performance levels of the assessment item by its
weighting. Using the performance scores, we can compare the environmental efficiency of functionality
between different buildings or the before and after conditions of the same building.
As shown in Fig. 8, items with lower performance (i.e. under 67%) and higher weighting (i.e. above
-
ion
priorities. Similarly, Fig. 9 suggests renovation priorities for reducing environmental loading include
-
lower performance (i.e. below 67%) and higher weighting (i.e. above 0.10).

0.24 100%
Weighting / Performance score

0.20
Provision Local characteristics
of storage & outdoor amenity
0.16 67%

Performance
0.12 Barr
Ba
arr
rriiie
ierr-fr
free
fr ee Pres
Pr
rees
e er
e va
erva
vati
tion
tion &
faccili
fa
faci liti
iti
ties
ties
e
es c ea
crea
cr e ttion
eati on of bi
bio
ioottop
opee

0.08 33%
%

0.04

0.00 0%
Functional Durability & Flexibility & Outdoor
ability reliability adaptability environment

Weighting
Performance
Performance score
Recommended range
Recommended priority
for renovation
Note: The upper limit of the recommended range of renovation is the basic performance (67%) and the lower limit is the highest
index weighting.

Fig. 8. Performance
f score of assessment items for functional quality
560 Heng Zhang and Siu Lai Lei / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 68 (2012) 549 – 563

0.30 100%

Weighting / Performance score

Natural energy
utilization

0.20 67%

Performance
Conns
Co nsid
ider
der
e at
atiio
io n o f
thher
erma
m l immpapact
ct
ct

0.10 33%

0.00 0%
Energy Resources & Off-
f site
materials environment

Weighting
Performance
Performance score
Recommended range
Recommended priority
for renovation
Note: The upper limit of the recommended range for renovation is the basic performance (67%) and the lower limit is the highest
index weighting.

Fig. 9. Performance scores of assessment items for environmental loading

4. Discussion

To estimate the value of renovation, we have formulated an assessment method that adopts the idea of
environmental efficacy, where functional quality is divided by environmental loading. Thus, the proposed
EEF refers to functional quality per unit of environmental loading. That is to say, we are investigating the
renovation value under an equal base of environmental loading to reflect the intention to minimize

renovation. It could thus have been used as a numerator in the proposed equation of the framework just

gives the framework a contemporary meaning by emphasizing the reduction of environmental loading.
Nevertheless, the framework simultaneously estimates the functional quality of a renovation, which
remains the core objective of the method.
In the study, the index weighting for evaluating the functional quality and environmental loading of
residential buildings were determined by expert opinions. The results (see Fig. 4) show, aside from the

environmental issues, such as population aging, quality of life,

f and biodiversity. Social and environmental
issues, which have received considerable attention recently in building design, also figure prominently in
expert opinions with respect to the functional quality of a building. The fact that experts have a consensus
about the functional quality of renovation, notably about indices related to social and environmental
issues, is a positive sign. It implies the concept of building quality has increasingly turned from a
quantitative approach, such as to provide enough space, towards a qualitative one. Normally, opinions of
experts represent certain trends in recent demands. Thus, the results of the index selection also suggest the
 Heng Zhang and Siu Lai Lei / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 68 (2012) 549 – 563 561

functional demands of residential buildings in Taiwan are more comprehensive and go beyond
quantitative consideration. Among them, the following received very high weighting, i.e. importance:
-

ainage

low importance (Table 3). The former may be attributed to the dominance of concrete buildings in

which is important for the maintenance and renovation of a home, may be attributed to the tendency of
Taiwanese people to neglect building maintenance.
Developing assessment tools based on these indices consistent with recent demands will encourage
architects or condo management committees to recognize the real requirements of people and pay more
attention to, aside from basic building functions, other crucial factors for improving the quality of life
such as barrier-free facilities, leisure space and facilities, and environmental preservation (Fig. 4).

31) and

thermal issues and saving energy through appropriate design and management strategies may contribute
to functional qualities as well as to efficient reduction of environmental loading for residential buildings.
In the pilot test, the EEF value (0.68) of the test building in reference to a range of 0.33~3.00 indicates
this building performs incompetently in environmental efficiency of functionality. The test subject, a
typical 15- to 20-year-
conditions for biodiversity, landscape quality, and local characteristics in the design and management of
the outdoor environment. This is representative of buildings erected around the same time. While the

impacts to off-
addressed urgently to enhance the building quality. Even within the overall satisfactory category of
and
-
that causes messy living conditions. In addition, the issue of barrier-free facilities and environment has
also become a top issue due to the rapidly aging population in Taiwan; it will continue to be important for
an aging society. Concerning the environmental loading of existing residential buildings (Fig. 9 and Table
ve impacts into off-

categories of the framework are of direct and positive interest to building owners or users with the
except -
global viewpoint. Although this item ranks high in priority, building owners may be reluctant to address it
due to lack of immediate benefit. This is where the intervention of financial or legislative policies may
become useful.
The results of this study also reflect oversight in the design and management of the test building with
regards to outdoor environment quality and impact on the off-site environment, which was common in
562 Heng Zhang and Siu Lai Lei / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 68 (2012) 549 – 563

building design two decades ago. From the standpoint of well-being for humans and the ecosystem, the
outdoor environment is an important issue in the improvement of building properties (Assefa, Glaumann,
Malmqvist, & Eriksson, 2010). Architects or condo management committees should consider the design
and management of the outdoor environment with respect to functional quality and environmental
loading. This assessment tool, which integrates the performance and weighting of each assessment items,
can help establish priorities in a renovation process for the purpose of improving the environmental
efficiency of functionality.

5. Conclusion

functional
quality; renovation requires much less resources and is thus considered more reasonable and sustainable.
Which qualities should be improved through renovation then becomes a key factor in the value generated
by such endeavor. In response to the dissatisfaction of many homeowners with the functional quality of
their homes and their desire to renovate, we have developed an easy-to-use framework for owners and
condo management committees of existing residential buildings to assess the value of their renovations,
with a specific focus on environmental efficiency of functionality. Based on expert opinions, the most

of functionality through a pilot test shows the proposed framework can provide valuable information to
homeowners in identifying high-priority or critical issues for improving functional quality as well as
reducing the environmental loading when carrying out renovations. They can use the method to compare
.

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by a grant from the National Science Council, Taiwan, Republic of China,
under the project NSC96-2621-Z006-003..

References

Assefa, G., Glaumann, M., Malmqvist, T., & Eriksson, O. (2010). Quality versus impact: Comparing the environmental efficiency
of building properties using the EcoEffect tool. Building and Environment, 45(5), 1095-1103.
Assefa, G., Glaumann, M., Malmqvist, T., Kindembe, B., Hult, M., Myhr, U., & Eriksson, O. (2007). Environmental assessment of
building properties Where natural and social sciences meet: The case of EcoEffect. Building and Environment, 42(3), 1458-
1464.
Bin, Guoshu, & Parker, Paul. (2012). Measuring buildings for sustainability: Comparing the initial and retrofit ecological footprint
of a century home The REEP House. Applied Energy, 93, 24-32.
Chang, Kuei-Feng, Chiang, Che-Ming, & Chou, Po-Cheng. (2007). Adapting aspects of GBTool 2005 searching for suitability in
Taiwan. Building and Environment, 42(1), 310-316.
Construction and Planning Agency. (2008). Occupancy permits in Taiwan and Fuchien Area - By use. Taipei: Ministry of Interior.
Directorate General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, ,. (2000). Completion year of construction of housing units for ordinary
households by city/county in Taiwan-Fukien Area. Taipei: Executive Yuan.
Endo, J., Murakami, Shuzo , & Ikaga, T. (2008). Designing a system to apply an assessment method of buildings for all lifecycle
stages based on the concept of eco-efficiency. Journal of ASTM International, 5(2), 1-11.
Erlandsson, M., & Levin, P. (2005). Environmental assessment of rebuilding and possible performance improvements effect on a
national scale. Building and Environment, 40, 1459-1471.
 Heng Zhang and Siu Lai Lei / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 68 (2012) 549 – 563 563

Forsberg, Anna, & Von Malmborg, Fredrik. (2004). Tools for environmental assessment of the built environment. Building and
Environment, 39, 223-228.
Hsu, H.-M. , Wey, W.-M. , & Tsai, P.-J. (2007). The applications of Analytic Network Process to the priorities of interdependent
housing projects selection. Journal of Architecture, 63, 49-74.
Hsu, Yu-Lung, Lee, Cheng-Haw, & Kreng, V. B. (2010). The application of Fuzzy Delphi Method and Fuzzy AHP in lubricant
regenerative technology selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(1), 419-425.
JSBC. (2005). CASBEE in practice: How to design advanced sustainable buildings. Tokyo: Nikkei Business Publications.
Kuo, Ying-Feng, & Chen, Pang-Cheng. (2008). Constructing performance appraisal indicators for mobility of the service industries
using Fuzzy Delphi Method. Expert Systems with Applications, 35(4), 1930-1939.
Kwong, C. K., & Bai, H. (2003). Determining the Importance Weights for the Customer Requirements in QFD Using a Fuzzy AHP
with an Extent Analysis Approach. IIE Transactions, 35(7), 619-626.
Lee, W.L ., & Burnett, J. (2006). Customization of GBTool in Hong Kong. Building and Environment, 41, 1831-1846.
Li, D. Z., Hui, Eddie C. M., Leung, Barbara Y. P., Li, Q. M., & Xu, X. (2010). A methodology for eco-efficiency evaluation of
residential development at city level. Building and Environment, 45(3), 566-573.
Malmqvist, Tove, & Glaumann, Mauritz. (2009). Environmental efficiency in residential buildings A simplified communication
approach. Building and Environment, 44(5), 937-947.
Nair, G., Gustavsson, L., & Mahapatra, K. (2010). Factors influencing energy efficiency investments in existing Swedish residential
buildings. Energy Policy, 38(6), 2956-2963.
Pan, Nang-Fei. (2008). Fuzzy AHP approach for selecting the suitable bridge construction method. Automation in Construction,
17(8), 958-965.
Salleh, A.G. (2008). Neighbourhood factors in private low-cost housing in Malaysia. Habitat International, 32, 485-493.
Verfaillie, H.A. , & Bidwell, R. (2000). Measuring Eco-Efficiency: A guide to reporting company performance. Genava: World
Business Council for Sustainable Development.
Wang, H.-L., & Tseng, Y.-Y. (2003). The allocation evaluation of urban parks and greenspace through landscape ecological
approach. Journal of Design, 8, 53-74.

View publication stats